To say the article is "meaningless", and imply that 12-15,000 calls per year to poison centers regarding children under 6yo being exposed to rat poison can simply be dismissed by invoking the insulting, sexist image of "hysterical" moms, is simply unconscionable.
Even if a certain percentage of those calls did turn out to be false alarms, no reasonable person would assume that anywhere near all of them were, any more than you'd assume that about calls to police and fire departments. Should we do away with fire safety standards?
An alleged human being, probably an industry whore, who makes an anonymous post in an attempt to discredit concerns about deadly poisons being spread about, where children and wildlife can eat them and die is worthy of something beyond contempt.
Common sense alone would guide a decent person with half a brain to the obvious conclusion that deadly poisons shouldn't even be manufactured for sale to the public, period. Just the fact that the stuff is deadly poison means that if you continue to market it, there will continue to be tragic poisonings. It clearly ought to be banned altogether.
As far as I'm concerned, anyone who advocates exposing kids to poison, which is what the continued sale of it amounts to, should eat it themselves.
Your point is unclear. There's a huge difference between charitable organizations working to improve life for the 99% versus mega-corporations working solely for profits... to the detriment of the 99%.
Unconstitutional campaign laws are prior restraints on flesh and blood citizen’s rights to participate and create “State approved” “corporate” presses.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment. Freedom of assembly, speech and press are the tools of political campaigns and existing campaign laws abridge all three.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial media and created a State approved press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term "expenditure" does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue "as an institution" would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!
The NRA bought a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. But flesh and blood citizens who share views on candidates and issues should not have to buy a media outlet to enjoy their 1st Amendment rights of assembly, speech and press. People should be free to assemble their money and talents to make their voices heard and offset the voices of billionaires and corporations.
We cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers lack balance.
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper's income... The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few...that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote...in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, non-profit corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
The problem is United States Senators and Congressman vote on bills that impact us all.
I have on occasion been told by aides to national politicians that their office cannot speak with me because I do not live in their district or State.
I have found threatening to propose your suggestion knocks down their objections.
The article mentions ALEC's Wynn's concern that low-income persons most afflicted with rat problems will be affected by a proposed ban on d-Con. The article continues by countering that the new safer proposals are just as effective. It fails to mention whether Low-income person would be able to afford the "safer" alternatives. If they cannot afford the available alternative, is a rat problem lower risk than the current risks of today's rat poisons? I would have liked to see that angle.
Pages